Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Do you agree that yesterday was an end to some interval of time?

Do you agree that that interval could have gone on forever? Like the negative part of numbers?

What Unter doesnt get is that all this talk is about that time doesnt need to have started, it can just have been going on.

Then there is no contradiction in saying that there was infinitely time before yesterday, since the interval measured is reaching backwards in time where no limit is found (if the assumption that time has always been is true)

(And, no unter: dont pretend that you read this, you dont get it anyway)

What you are saying is that there is no limit to the amount of time that passed in the past.

You claim the past starts at the previous moment and goes on without stop, forever.

This is an absurd claim.

If time went on in the past forever then forever would have to occur before any present moment could occur.

But of course even a child knows, forever never occurs. It just keeps going and going.

 

[ryan]

Do you agree that yesterday was an end to some interval of time?

Do you agree that that interval could have gone on forever? Like the negative part of numbers?

What Unter doesnt get is that all this talk is about that time doesnt need to have started, it can just have been going on.

Then there is no contradiction in saying that there was infinitely time before yesterday, since the interval measured is reaching backwards in time where no limit is found (if the assumption that time has always been is true)

One thing different about a timeline than a human considering a number line is that a number line does not have an intrinsic direction like time may have. If time really does have a one way direction, then a timeline really shouldn't be compared the same way to a number line.

So, a number line that constantly moves forward will never reach zero either or any real number for that matter. Today, or the nth unit, would never have come.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't feel like you are addressing the argument here.

I wasn't aware of a coherent argument, so probably digressed and wandered among the words...

Do you agree that yesterday was an end to some interval of time?

Keep in mind that an interval is a defined, finite measurement. An infinite amount of time is not an interval, which is a defined measurement between 2 points: both infinity and negative infinity are not specific points, they are boundless.

Can an infinite number of days have a final day?

That question muddies the waters a bit (unless this is your intent? I'm not sure if you want to understand infinities, already do and are playing around, or trolling, a fact of which you should be aware of).

A clarified, more precise question would be "Can an undefined amount of time end at a specific point in time?"

So pick the point you want to define as the end of the undefined amount of time, and measure from there (if you want a well defined amount of time). Perhaps measure 2014 years back, and set your calendar by that. Perhaps decide you'd like the New Year to fall on the spring equinox instead of a week or so after winter solstice...

You don't have to start measuring time from any point, but if you do want to measure time you need to pick a specific point to measure from, and use some sort of standard rule to measure....

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you agree that that interval could have gone on forever? Like the negative part of numbers?

What Unter doesnt get is that all this talk is about that time doesnt need to have started, it can just have been going on.

Then there is no contradiction in saying that there was infinitely time before yesterday, since the interval measured is reaching backwards in time where no limit is found (if the assumption that time has always been is true)

(And, no unter: dont pretend that you read this, you dont get it anyway)

What you are saying is that there is no limit to the amount of time that passed in the past.

You claim the past starts at the previous moment and goes on without stop, forever.

This is an absurd claim.

If time went on in the past forever then forever would have to occur before any present moment could occur.

But of course even a child knows, forever never occurs. It just keeps going and going.

No. That is what you are saying. He is saying that time didn't have to start, it could have always been. You keep assuming a start even though everyone keeps telling you that infinity means there isn't a start.

Time is a dimension. Treat it as one of the spacial dimensions. Assume you are walking down a road in some strange flatland world, all you have ever seen of the road is a couple miles either way from where you are born. Does it make any difference in what you experience whether the road has ends somewhere far, far away or if it doesn't?

 

[Kharakov]

Thanks a lot. Now he's going to rant about how "dimensions are a mathematical concept, and can't be used to understand reality because math is imaginary!" All the while using another symbolic medium (English) to convey meaning.

Ya (not you!) gotta be a special type of stupid to use language to describe how language cannot describe reality...

OR believe that we cannot use symbols to focus our minds upon a particular concept, because the symbols are not what we are using the symbols to direct focus upon!

 

[untermensche]

What you are saying is that there is no limit to the amount of time that passed in the past.

You claim the past starts at the previous moment and goes on without stop, forever.

This is an absurd claim.

If time went on in the past forever then forever would have to occur before any present moment could occur.

But of course even a child knows, forever never occurs. It just keeps going and going.

No. That is what you are saying. He is saying that time didn't have to start, it could have always been. You keep assuming a start even though everyone keeps telling you that infinity means there isn't a start.

Time is a dimension. Treat it as one of the spacial dimensions. Assume you are walking down a road in some strange flatland world, all you have ever seen of the road is a couple miles either way from where you are born. Does it make any difference in what you experience whether the road has ends somewhere far, far away or if it doesn't?

Time is more than a dimension.

If there is time then there is change. If there is no change we cannot say there is time.

To say finite time already passed is the same as saying infinite change already took place.

So it is saying that before yesterday infinite change occurred first.

But for the seemingly thousandth time, infinite change cannot occur first. It is change without end. Waiting for change without end to occur first is to wait forever.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. That is what you are saying. He is saying that time didn't have to start, it could have always been. You keep assuming a start even though everyone keeps telling you that infinity means there isn't a start.

Time is a dimension. Treat it as one of the spacial dimensions. Assume you are walking down a road in some strange flatland world, all you have ever seen of the road is a couple miles either way from where you are born. Does it make any difference in what you experience whether the road has ends somewhere far, far away or if it doesn't?

Time is more than a dimension.

If there is time then there is change. If there is no change we cannot say there is time.

To say finite time already passed is the same as saying infinite change already took place.

So it is saying that before yesterday infinite change occurred first.

But for the seemingly thousandth time, infinite change cannot occur first. It is change without end. Waiting for change without end to occur first is to wait forever.

Yes so you have continually said over that last hundred pages with no other basis than that it is your belief (sorta like the "god folks" arguments. "It is so because I believe it."). As I have said, you would be damned hard pressed to find any cosmologist (people who actually work with this shit) who holds your belief that an infinite past is logically impossible. Humanity has learned much since Aristotle.

Although most cosmologists don't really worry about whether or not time is infinite because it is irrelevant to their understanding of the universe as we now observe it. However, an infinite past is assumed in Brane Cosmology and, for your entertainment, here's an argument for a revised view of a cyclic universe (an eternal cycling universe). Not that I buy his argument but it shows that he sees no problem with an eternal past - he even "proves" it with his model.



Perhaps you would like to point out where his physics is wrong. Can you make as good an argument for your unsupported belief?

ETA:
Please expand on this:

Time is more than a dimension.

What exactly (in your expert, learned opinion) is your description of time? Are you saying that Einstein was wrong? Do you even know how relativity describes and uses time?

 

[untermensche]

What exactly (in your expert, learned opinion) is your description of time? Are you saying that Einstein was wrong? Do you even know how Einstein described time?

If there is time there is change.

If you don't have change you don't have time.

If you say infinite time occurred in the past this is no different from saying there was infinite change in the past.

So if there was infinite time before yesterday then there was infinite change as well. So by this logic infinite change occurred before yesterday occurred.

This, once again for the thousandth time, means that yesterday can never occur because infinite change never finishes.

This argument does not touch on relativity in the least. You trying to shove it into the discussion is without cause or logical justification.

 

[skepticalbip]

What exactly (in your expert, learned opinion) is your description of time? Are you saying that Einstein was wrong? Do you even know how Einstein described time?

If there is time there is change.

If you don't have change you don't have time.

If you say infinite time occurred in the past this is no different from saying there was infinite change in the past.

So if there was infinite time before yesterday then there was infinite change as well. So by this logic infinite change occurred before yesterday occurred.

This, once again for the thousandth time, means that yesterday can never occur because infinite change never finishes.

This argument does not touch on relativity in the least. You trying to shove it into the discussion is without cause or logical justification.

Yes. You keep repeating this mantra like creationists keep repeating that god created the universe 6000 years ago in six days. Repetition of the same nonsense does not make it true.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum not a site for proselytizing your belief over and over with no evidence. I gave you a video of a cosmologist explaining his idea of eternal time. You made no comment but just returned to your mantra that says absolutely nothing but nonsense.

Perhaps you would like to point out where his physics is wrong. Can you make as good an argument for your unsupported belief?

ETA:
Please expand on this:

Time is more than a dimension.

What exactly (in your expert, learned opinion) is your description of time? Are you saying that Einstein was wrong? Do you even know how relativity describes and uses time?

This argument does not touch on relativity in the least. You trying to shove it into the discussion is without cause or logical justification.

It does since you claim that time is something other than described in relativity. I simply asked how in your expert opinion since your argument was that you knew my analogy was nonsense, not even worthy of comment.

 

[untermensche]

If there is time there is change.

If you don't have change you don't have time.

If you say infinite time occurred in the past this is no different from saying there was infinite change in the past.

So if there was infinite time before yesterday then there was infinite change as well. So by this logic infinite change occurred before yesterday occurred.

This, once again for the thousandth time, means that yesterday can never occur because infinite change never finishes.

This argument does not touch on relativity in the least. You trying to shove it into the discussion is without cause or logical justification.

Yes. You keep repeating this mantra like creationists keep repeating that god created the universe 6000 years ago in six days. Repetition of the same nonsense does not make it true.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum not a site for proselytizing your belief over and over with no evidence. I gave you a video of a cosmologist explaining his idea of eternal time. You made no comment but just returned to your mantra that says absolutely nothing but nonsense.

It is a logical argument. There are many ways to logically approach an examination of a logical argument.

This is not one of them.

This is hand waving.

It does since you claim that time is something other than described in relativity. I simply asked how in your expert opinion since your argument was that you knew my analogy was nonsense, not even worthy of comment.

Saying the passing of time is equivalent to an amount of change does not touch on relativity.

Your perpetual hand waving is getting stale.

 

[skepticalbip]

And your continual repetition of the same mantra that is nothing but pure nonsense is getting quite stale too. Even millions of posts repeating the mantra would not make it true.

Would you like to actually think and comment on the video? It addresses exactly what you claim to want to argue and it contradicts your assertion.

Explain where he is wrong.



If you only want to engage in mental masturbation of making what you mistakenly think is a logical argument while ignoring known reality to do so then you need to take it to the philosophy forum. The science forums are supposedly to examine and discuss reality. Relativity gives us some understanding of time so contradicting it to make your "logical" argument is just mental masturbation. The video describes what physics says is possible. The science forum is a place to discuss things like that, not a place to ignore it because it contradicts to what you want to "logically" argue is truth. The science forum is to point out what is wrong or right in the presentation.

 

[Kharakov]

What you say is not logical.

What I say is.

You assert that which is not making sense.

Therefore what I have asserted is true, and what you have said is not logical.

 

[skepticalbip]

Anyone who considers themselves a philosopher doesn't have a clue about reality.

Unter considers himself a philosopher.

Therefore Unter doesn't have a clue about reality.



Hey this logical syllogism shit is fun. I may have to try our philosophy forum.

 

[Kharakov]

Dude, you don't even have to maintain syllogistic form.

Because syllogistic form means you are following a form.

And forms cannot be described by words.

I ate a sandwich earlier.

Only a finite amount of time has passed since the sandwich was eatern

Therefore the sandwich has not existed for eternity.

Because forms cannot be described by words.


If you keep unreasoning like this, your mind will stick like that.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can not know that you ate a sandwich earlier. Earlier is in the past and the past does not exist. Therefore since the past does not exist you couldn't have eaten a sandwich.

 

[untermensche]

I see the hand waving is growing to a frenetic level.

There are ways to logically approach the examination of an argument.

Dancing around like hyenas is not one of them.

If somebody claims that infinite change already occurred before yesterday they don't have a clue.

Infinite change does not occur. It goes on and on.

 

[George S]

If there is time then there is change. If there is no change we cannot say there is time.

Here you get it. Change takes place in space. No change takes no time, small change takes a little time, and so on. And there are equations that describe this joint motion through spacetime.

So time is meaningless if nothing is going on, nothing changing in space. Is there anything happening more than 13.72 billion years ago? That is an open question. Various physicists, various answers. Deist believers fit a god there.

But, I dare say, even those who favor time "starting" understand the others who favor an eternal timeline.

What is your opinion on Hawking's No Boundary proposal?

 

[skepticalbip]

I see the hand waving is growing to a frenetic level.

There are ways to logically approach the examination of an argument.

Dancing around like hyenas is not one of them.

If somebody claims that infinite change already occurred before yesterday they don't have a clue.

Infinite change does not occur. It goes on and on.

Yes you have stated that you believe that many times with nothing to support it. I'm still waiting for you to respond with what is wrong with the physics presented by Penrose that contradicts your belief. Where is his error?

 

[Kharakov]

If somebody claims that infinite change already occurred before yesterday they don't have a clue.

That's a stupid statement. The expansion of space from a singularity with no size, to a volume of any size, has an infinite expansion ratio.

Infinite change does not occur. It goes on and on.

Yeah, going on and on is the same thing as occurring, by the way. But that's probably a little bit too much for you to understand.....

 

[ryan]

Do you agree that yesterday was an end to some interval of time?

Keep in mind that an interval is a defined, finite measurement. An infinite amount of time is not an interval, which is a defined measurement between 2 points: both infinity and negative infinity are not specific points, they are boundless.

Okay, but aren't we closing the wrong end of infinity if time moves in one direction. The interval would be (-infinity, +infinity] where +infinity is today. Apparently this can happen with the extended reals, but I don't think it can happen with the naturals. And the naturals seem to be most relevant to this argument.

Can an infinite number of days have a final day?

That question muddies the waters a bit (unless this is your intent? I'm not sure if you want to understand infinities, already do and are playing around, or trolling, a fact of which you should be aware of).

I don't know how I can convince you of sincerity if I am really trying to deceive you. Sorry, but you must have faith this time.

A clarified, more precise question would be "Can an undefined amount of time end at a specific point in time?"

Yeah, this is a good generalization of the problem.

So pick the point you want to define as the end of the undefined amount of time, and measure from there (if you want a well defined amount of time). Perhaps measure 2014 years back, and set your calendar by that. Perhaps decide you'd like the New Year to fall on the spring equinox instead of a week or so after winter solstice...

You don't have to start measuring time from any point, but if you do want to measure time you need to pick a specific point to measure from, and use some sort of standard rule to measure....

I could possibly agree with this if we knew that time does't have a single direction. With only one direction, time could be bounded today, but we know that conflicts with infinity having an upper bound for an infinite number of units. Or similarly, it would be like an asymptote in the direction of an infinite number of units. Again, this assumes that the naturals are sufficient for describing the reality of an infinite number of units of time.